Citation: Regina v Grujevski [2004] NSWCCA 117
Court: NSW Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 22 March 2004
Judge(s): Beazley JA, O'Keefe J, Bell J
Background
The appellant was convicted by a jury in the District Court at Queanbeyan on a charge of detaining a woman without her consent, with intent to obtain sexual gratification, during which actual bodily harm was occasioned. He was sentenced to three years' imprisonment with an 18-month non-parole period.
The charge arose from events on 27 December 2001. The Crown alleged that the appellant drove the complainant away from a football club, past her street when she asked to be let out, punched her when she tried to escape at traffic lights, and ultimately dragged her into an unoccupied house in an isolated subdivision where he had been working as a painter. Witnesses corroborated hearing prolonged, distressed screaming and seeing the appellant restrain the complainant outside his van.
The indictment contained three counts relating to the same incident. The jury convicted the appellant on the first count (detention with intent to obtain sexual gratification causing actual bodily harm) but acquitted him on the second (assault with indecency) and third (attempted sexual intercourse without consent). The appellant did not seek leave to appeal against his sentence.
Legal Issues
- Whether the guilty verdict on the first count was unreasonable and could not be supported having regard to the evidence.
- Whether the guilty verdict on the first count was inconsistent with the acquittals on the second and third counts, such that no reasonable jury properly applying its mind could have reached that outcome.
- Whether the only rational interpretation of the acquittals was that the Crown had failed to prove the appellant intended to obtain sexual gratification by the detention.
Decision
O'Keefe J (with whom Beazley JA and Bell J agreed) examined the principles governing inconsistent verdicts. The court confirmed that the test is whether the verdicts are consistent with logic, reasonableness and common sense. A jury is entitled to approach different counts differently, and an acquittal on one count does not automatically render a conviction on another count unreasonable.
On the facts, the court found it was open to the jury to infer sexual intent from the totality of the circumstances, including the appellant's conduct at the club, his decision to drive the complainant to an isolated and unoccupied premises he knew from his work, and the manner in which he restrained and dragged her into the house while she screamed. The court noted that the jury also asked questions during deliberations that, together with the trial judge's agreed replies, further illuminated the verdicts as coherent and explicable.
The court rejected the appellant's submission that the acquittals on counts two and three necessarily meant the jury had rejected the element of intent to obtain sexual gratification on count one. The guilty verdict on count one could stand consistently with the acquittals because the jury may have been satisfied of intent without being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the specific acts alleged in counts two and three had occurred. There was no affront to logic, reasonableness or common sense in allowing the conviction to stand.
Orders Made
- The appeal is dismissed.
Key Takeaways
- In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that acquittals on some counts in a multi-count indictment do not automatically render a guilty verdict on another count inconsistent or unreasonable.
- The applicable test for inconsistent verdicts is whether the verdicts, taken together, are consistent with logic, reasonableness and common sense.
- A jury may be satisfied of an element common to multiple counts (such as intent) when convicting on one count, while still having a reasonable doubt about the specific conduct alleged in related counts.
- Sufficient circumstantial evidence of sexual intent can support a conviction for detention even where the jury acquits on counts directly alleging the sexual acts themselves.
- The Court of Criminal Appeal drew on jury questions and the trial judge's replies during deliberations as a useful aid to understanding and reconciling the verdicts.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Cases cited:
- Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439
- M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
- MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348
- Osland v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 316
- Regina v Wilkinson (1970) Crim LR 176